Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: Systematic review comparing test accuracy

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volumn 89, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1374-1384

  Champaneria, Rita ^a   Abedin, Parveen ^b   Daniels, Jane ^a   Balogun, Moji ^b   Khan, Khalid S ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b BIRMINGHAM WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adenomyosis; Diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; MRI; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADENOMYOSIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; META ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY;

ENDOMETRIOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEVONORGESTREL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROGESTERONE CONGENERS;

EID: 77958493783     PISSN: 00016349     EISSN: 16000412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/00016349.2010.512061     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1989;16:221-235
2. Lone FW, Balogun M, Khan KS. Adenomyosis: not such an elusive diagnosis any longer. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;26: 225-228
3. Devlieger R, D'Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9: 139-147
4. Honore LH, Cumming DC, Dunlop DL, Scott JZ. Uterine adenomyoma associated with infertility. A report of three cases. J Reprod Med. 1988;33:331-335
5. Botsis D, Kassanos D, Antoniou G, Pyrgiotis E, Karakitsos P, Kalogirou D. Adenomyoma and leiomyoma: differential diagnosis with transvaginal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1998; 26:21-25
6. Ascher SM, Arnold LL, Patt RH, Schruefer JJ, Bagley AS, Semelka RCR, et al. Adenomyosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994; 190:803-806
7. Imaoka I, Ascher SM, Sugimura K, Takahashi K, Li H, Cuomo F, et al. MR imaging of diffuse adenomyosis changes after GnRH analog therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;15: 285-290
8. Atri M, Reinhold C, Mehio AR, Chapman WB, Bret PM. Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in vitro study. Radiology. 2000;215:783-790
9. Andreotti RF, Fleischer AC. The sonographic diagnosis of adenomyosis. Ultrasound Quart. 2005;21:167-170
10. Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, Wang L, Atri M, Siegelman ES, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1999;19(suppl 1):147-160
11. Bazot M, Darai E, Rouger J, Detchev R, Cortez A, Uzan S. Limitations of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis, with histopathological correlation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20:605-611
12. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427-2433
13. Vercellini P, Cortesi I, De GO, Merlo D, Carinelli SG, Crosignani PG. Transvaginal ultrasonography versus uterine needle biopsy in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2884-2887
14. Mark AS, Hricak H, Heinrichs LW, Hendrickson MR, Winkler ML, Bachica JA, et al. Adenomyosis and leiomyoma: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1987;163: 527-529
15. Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Wang L. Imaging features of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:337-349
16. Tafazoli F, Reinhold C. Uterine adenomyosis: current concepts in imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 1999;20: 267-277
17. Togashi K, Ozasa H, Konishi I, Itoh H, Nishimura K, Fujisawa I, et al. Enlarged uterus: differentiation between adenomyosis and leiomyoma with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;171:531-534
18. Hricak H, Alpers C, Crooks LE, Sheldon PE. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141:1119-1128 (Pubitemid 14210838)
19. Kier R. Magnetic resonance imaging of the uterus. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1994;2:189-210.
20. Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Mehio A, Atri M, Zakarian R, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;199:151-158
21. Togashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K, Fujisawa I, Noma S, Kanaoka M, et al. Adenomyosis: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;166(1 Pt 1):111-114
22. Khan KS, Dinnes J, Kleijnen J. Systematic reviews to evaluate diagnostic tests. Eur J obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;95: 6-11.
23. Deeks J. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323: 157-162
24. Khan KS, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's Guidance for Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. 2nd edn. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, 2001, CRD Report No.4 York, ISBN 1900640201, URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/ crd/report4.htm
25. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C. Guidelines for metaanalyses evaluating diagnostic tests [see comment]. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667-676
26. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.
27. Bossuyt PM, Reistma JB, Burns DE, Gastsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41-44
28. Honest H, Khan KS. Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2:4.
29. Khan KS, Khan SF, Nwosu CR, Arnott N, Chien PF. Misleading authors' inferences in obstetric diagnostic test literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:112-115
30. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271:703-707 (Pubitemid 24061707)
31. Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998; 122:675-686
32. Kardaun JWPF, Kardaun OJWF. Comparative diagnostic performance of three radiological procedures for the detection of lumbar disk herniation. Methods Inf Med. 1990;29: 12-22.
33. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Metaanalytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;48:119-130
34. Midgette AS, Stukel TA, Littenberg B. A metaanalytic method for summarizing diagnostic test performances: Receiver-operating-characteristic- summary point estimates. Med Decis Mak. 1993;13:253-257
35. Moses LE, Shapiro DE, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic tests into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293-1316
36. Hanley JA. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves. In: Armitage P, Colton T (eds). Encyclopedia of biostatistics. Chichester: Wiley, 1998. pp. 3738-3745
37. Beck JR, Shultz EK. The use of relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves in test performance evaluation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1986;110:13-19.
38. Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen JH. Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med. 1998;17:1033-1053
39. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A. Meta-disc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMCMed Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.
40. Korczynski J, Sobkiewicz S. Adenomyosis. Diagnostic technique and treatment. Ginekologia Polska. 2001;72:317-321
41. Kepkep K, Tuncay YA, Goynumer G, Tutal E. Transvaginal sonography in the diganosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30: 341-345
42. Huang R-T, Chou C-Y, Chang C-H, Yu C-H, Huang S-C, Yao B-L. Differentiation between adenomyoma and leiomyoma with transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;5:47-50.
43. Chiang CH, Chang MY, Hsu JJ, Chiu TH, Lee KF, Hsieh TT, et al. Tumor vascular pattern and blood flow impedance in the differential diagnosis of leiomyoma and adenomyosis by color Doppler sonography. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16:268-275
44. Siedler D, Laing FC, Jeffrey Jr RB, Wing VW. Uterine adenomyosis. A difficult sonographic diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med. 1987;6:345-349
45. Reinhold C, Atri M, Mehio A, Zakarian R, Aldis AE, Bret PM. Diffuse uterine adenomyosis: morphologic criteria and diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal sonography. Radiology. 1995;197:609-614
46. Phillips DR, Nathanson HG, Milim SJ, Haselkorn JS. Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing adenomyomata. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3:245-250
47. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Arcaini L, Zanotti F, Carinelli S. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 1992;58:94-97
48. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Zanotti F, Brioschi D, Carinelli S. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of adenomyoma versus leiomyoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;167:603-606
49. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F, Laursen H. Reproducibility of evaluation of the uterus by transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, hysteroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:195-200.
50. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:588-594
51. Brosens JJ, de Souza NM, Barker FG, Paraschos T, Winston RML. Endovaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis uteri: idetifying the predictive characteristics. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:471-474
52. Bromley B, Shipp TD, Benacerraf B. Adenomyosis: sonographic findings and diagnostic accuracy. J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19:529-534
53. Bazot M, Darai E, Clement de GS, Boudghene F, Uzan S, Le Blanche AF. Fast breath-hold T2-weighted MR imaging reduces interobserver variability in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1291-1296
54. Atzori E, Tronci C, Sionis L. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1996;42:39-41.
55. Balogun M. Imaging diagnosis of adenomyosis. Rev Gynaecol Perin Pract. 2006;6:63-69
56. Dueholm M. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:569-582
57. Meredith SM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:107 e1-6.
58. Khan KS, Chien PF. Evaluation of a clinical test. I: assessment of reliability. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:562-567
59. Volkers NA, Hehenkamp WJ, Spijkerboer AM, Moolhuijzen AD, Birnie E, Ankum WM, et al. MR reproducibility in the assessment of uterine fibroids for patients scheduled for uterine artery embolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31:260-268
60. Chien PF, Khan KS. Evaluation of a clinical test. II: assessment of validity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:568-572
61. Alexander M, Hedvig H, LeRoy WH. Adenomyosis and leiyomyoma: differential diagnosis with Mr imaging. Radiology. 1987;163:527-529